Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

GW rewrote the 3rd edition DA codex so there is a strong precedence. Don't ask "Why?". Ask "How?".

G

Platuan4th wrote:So basically, Dosadi is being as wish-listy as everyone else despite the Arch-writist's actual statements?

First, Dosadi is rarely wrong about rumors he decides to share, which this could be one of those times or GW changed their mind since his source told him that.

Second, and more importantly, The "Arch-writist" was corrected at least once during one of the presentations for saying the wrong thing about a product he was describing (the Deff-Koptas). Phil has also been wrong before when denying (and when confirming) rumors or product questions at GW events before. GW has been known to lie to customers about a product coming out even after it has been announced and placed on their website. Two examples are 5th Edition, which some GW reps still denied it was coming out in 2008 as of May, and the contents of AoBR.

Alpharius, I just stated that is where the rumor started, people taking Dosadi's comment out of context and making it fact.

temprus wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:So basically, Dosadi is being as wish-listy as everyone else despite the Arch-writist's actual statements?

First, Dosadi is rarely wrong about rumors he decides to share, which this could be one of those times or GW changed their mind since his source told him that.

Second, and more importantly, The "Arch-writist" was corrected at least once during one of the presentations for saying the wrong thing about a product he was describing (the Deff-Koptas). Phil has also been wrong before when denying (and when confirming) rumors or product questions at GW events before. GW has been known to lie to customers about a product coming out even after it has been announced and placed on their website. Two examples are 5th Edition, which some GW reps still denied it was coming out in 2008 as of May, and the contents of AoBR.

Alpharius, I just stated that is where the rumor started, people taking Dosadi's comment out of context and making it fact.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend Dosadi(as I don't know the man), just the second qoute seems more wish-listy than in-the-know rumour. As for the Deff-koptas(at least the second seminar around) Phil was mentioning ideas from around the studio, not the actual AoBR models, at least that's what I gathered with the mention of other designers and sketches. Could he have slipped and been talking about later release models? Perhaps, but it seemed he was more talking about what they wanted to do with the ones in the box.

WTF is wish listy? G

I just realized these are very speculative rumors.

Long liver the Emp... he is like the pimp. G

Unfortunately, it really isn't feasible to FAQ DA/BA/BT.

Look at it this way: In third edition, DA etc were suppliments to the Space Marine codex, rather than stand alones, so an update to the base codex immediatly trickled down. Now, however, each has a stand alone book, which means every entry in the entire book would have to be errated. Essentailly, there would be an entire book of nothing but Errata, rather than the page or two needed when they were suppliments.

I'm not saying that the current situation is ideal: the best solution would be for GW to rewrite the army lists for DA/BT with the new army list structures and release a 2.0 codex (they should be all for it, more money in their pocket). They wouldn't have to reinvent the rules or fluff, just plug the army list, costs and options with each army's rules.

DA and BA are close enough to the standard marine codex and to each other; I'm not surprised by the prospect of a return to an Angels of Death style codex especially if its also in the new thicker format. DA already have all their models and BA wouldn't need too much.

BT and Space Wolves are both different enough that they really need their own books. BT will probably be the last SM redone.

They might be able to even get away with a triple codex release. Just put out one new model for each book and send them out. It'd probably be great for sales.

rowanalpha wrote:Unfortunately, it really isn't feasible to FAQ DA/BA/BT.

It's a single page FAQ per list at most. It's really not that hard.

BYE

They've been saying they'd give more FAQ support and even have a dedicated staffer assigned to it. So I seriously think they could do something if they wanted to.

BT does not really NEED a new codex or FAQ now.

What would they gain through it?Grenades for free,and what?

Most of the new features and new models in the 5th SM codex(Honorguard,Vanguard,Sternguard,new scouts rules,techmarine as HQ,combat tactics and the Special characters...), would(and should,through fluff) have not any relation with templars.

The only exception is LRR,if BT could not got it.It is hard to accept that GW does not want to sell their new LR kits to Templar players,who was the most enthusiastic fans of LR...

Actually BT players would (well the 2 I know were giggling about it) get cheap (3pt?) stormshileds for the assault squads.

Still not sure what the problem is, as others have said- if you want the new toys play "green painted/red painted marines"
If you want the older toys (Deathwing assault etc) use that Codex.

Don't see how 2 players are going to get confused with different rules for the same gear- pretty sure they'll each be reading from their own codex so it shouldn't be a problem.

Overall it'd have been nice to have everything match up, but it's hardly making the Angels, Templars or Wolves unplayable.

Wouldn't that be nice, a Codex: Divergent Chapters.

I'm sure we'll see that at the same time as a Legions codex.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Wouldn't that be nice, a Codex: Divergent Chapters.

I'm sure we'll see that at the same time as a Legions codex.

I don't think that would be nice.Maybe it is the worst suggestion I could hear through my ears since I knew warhammer.

Who would feel comfortable,when his army have to see their Codex eliminated,or annexed?

Hexx wrote:
Don't see how 2 players are going to get confused with different rules for the same gear- pretty sure they'll each be reading from their own codex so it shouldn't be a problem.

Overall it'd have been nice to have everything match up, but it's hardly making the Angels, Templars or Wolves unplayable.

It's not the unplayability that is the problem. Do you know why Universal Special Rules were introduced in 4th? It works against both Wysiwig and common sense to have multiple versions of the rules coexisting. The designers could have choosen a couple of steps (renaming the peice of gear existed as an option. I strongly remeber trying to figure out what my opponents version of true grit was, and this is the same stupidity.

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:Yep. DA Terminator Command Squads are squads of 5 (no more, no less) and their Terminators don't have access to (50 pt) drop pods.

After the new CSM comes out, only BT and SW Terminators can ride in Drop Pods.

tokugawa wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:Wouldn't that be nice, a Codex: Divergent Chapters.

I'm sure we'll see that at the same time as a Legions codex.

I don't think that would be nice.Maybe it is the worst suggestion I could hear through my ears since I knew warhammer.

Who would feel comfortable,when his army have to see their Codex eliminated,or annexed?

It worked in 2nd Edition; the Angels of Death Codex had both Blood Angels/Dark Angels in it... It would Mesh nicely with a 4 colors Chaos Legion codex. I can see paying $25 for a 155 page book, about 38 pages per chapter (SW, BT, BA, DA).

Valhallan42nd wrote:It worked in 2nd Edition; the Angels of Death Codex had both Blood Angels/Dark Angels in it... It would Mesh nicely with a 4 colors Chaos Legion codex. I can see paying $25 for a 155 page book, about 38 pages per chapter (SW, BT, BA, DA).

I hope they do that, as it is one step closer to just putting them all in one codex.

wode love a realy big codex whit evry marien army in it but it wood be lijke 200pages

Nothing is wrong with more pages. Think back to the days of Realms of Chaos.

G

efarrer wrote:

Hexx wrote:
Don't see how 2 players are going to get confused with different rules for the same gear- pretty sure they'll each be reading from their own codex so it shouldn't be a problem.

Overall it'd have been nice to have everything match up, but it's hardly making the Angels, Templars or Wolves unplayable.

It's not the unplayability that is the problem. Do you know why Universal Special Rules were introduced in 4th? It works against both Wysiwig and common sense to have multiple versions of the rules coexisting. The designers could have choosen a couple of steps (renaming the peice of gear existed as an option. I strongly remeber trying to figure out what my opponents version of true grit was, and this is the same stupidity.

Yes... but what's new?
For years the only DH armies that I've fought who have rending asscans are the one's who don't annoy me.
When I play against a marine army with terminators they might be fearless, they might not. Same model, same "WYSIWYG"

It'd be nice if it all worked the same, (and i have no idea why they changed the stormshiled) but how do you price it if used
-by BT assault squads
-by whoever can use it in a regular marince dex
-by fearless terminators who can mix heavy weapons in the squads

Same with all the other gear.

If you're happy with your BA/Da/BT play them. If you'd rather have the new toys use the new codex.

Hexx wrote:
Yes... but what's new?
For years the only DH armies that I've fought who have rending asscans are the one's who don't annoy me.
When I play against a marine army with terminators they might be fearless, they might not. Same model, same "WYSIWYG"

It'd be nice if it all worked the same, (and i have no idea why they changed the stormshiled) but how do you price it if used
-by BT assault squads
-by whoever can use it in a regular marince dex
-by fearless terminators who can mix heavy weapons in the squads

Same with all the other gear.

If you're happy with your BA/Da/BT play them. If you'd rather have the new toys use the new codex.

I have no problem keeping track of rules for my army. What I have trouble with is when, and I have seen it, people who use the best rules for the moment. During the heat of games it can be possible for an opponent to not notice this, in particular when the opponent is not as familar with the lesser known unit. I can't understand at all why GW would wish to return to this.

As to the rest, you point it out the same way GW does other points values. You place a dart board on the wall and through darts until you hit a number you can live with.

I couldn't care less about which army I play, as I have almost all of them. I just really don't like seeing a convienent location for cheating, as existed back in the day.

I am going to be surprised if a storm shield goes up in points by more than 5. Even if it does it is still something that is easy to FAQ in for other chapters.

"The Storm Shield entry now reads: Confers a 3+ invulnerable save. Storm Shield cost is increased by X."

How hard would that be? Just replace X with cost increase to them in the new Codex and call it good.

derek wrote:How hard would that be?

World shatteringly hard, apparently.

It seems that GW is of the opinion - and, astoundingly, so are some of the posters here - that it is far more complicated to carry a 1-page FAQ for your Codex than it is for people to show up with the same models that have different rules.

How they see the latter as beign 'easier to understand' is beyond me... simply behind me.

BYE

Green Blow Fly wrote:GW rewrote the 3rd edition DA codex ... Don't ask "Why?". Ask "How?".

I thought the motto of the Dark Angels was 'Don't ask, don't tell'??



@ me.



Sorry, I couldn't resist.

BYE